Lone parents expected to seek work when kids are 5?

[champagnesupernova]

Just catching up on yesterday's news and saw this and was surprised there wasn't anything about this on here already

What do you think?

I don't think anyone doubts the difficultys of being a single parent but I don't think its wrong for them to be expected to work when their children are of school age.

It's actually harder once they are school age, I wish I'd realised that a long time ago that the days to further your career, bank loads of money, study something new is when the baby is a baby.
Once they are at school it's a nightmare.

how do people feel about this?

if you are stay at home mum [and married] you are forced to have to work when kids are at school.

if you are single parent mum [single] you are forced out to work when kids are at school.

isn't that fair?

now, i wonder if that rule was applied, then wouldn't a lot of the responses on here be quite different indeed.

legostuckinmyhoover Surely the difference is that the SAHM is not dependent on welfare (assuming her dh works) whilst the single parent is.

A SAH single parent who didn't receive benefits would not have to look for work. Now they may be few and far between, but that is the comparable thing surely?

well - you're assuming they're not dependent on their housing benefit, child benefit, working tax credit and child care credit while the DH works.......

If they are dependent on non-universal benefits then I think they should also have to look for work

my view is that none of us need work. No-one can make us afterall.
Single parent, or a couple, or childless. We are all free to choose....just can't expect someone else to fund it.

but, what if the law was that SAHM with husbands had to go to work. How would you feel?

Well, they wouldn't get child care credit surely?

Actually, I agree with you. If a single parent needs to be seeking work, then I'm not sure why both parents in a couple shouldn't be asked to find work too if they are in receipt of benefits. I really don't know too much about couples and benefits, as we both work and don't receive any (except child benefit), and my sister (a single parent) is in receipt of some benefits but also works full time. I was a bit shocked at the idea on another thread that the WOHP could reduce their hours voluntarily and have that made up by public money.

I need to do some research I think!

I wouldn't be in favour of the law dictating whether or not someone worked. But that isn't what we're discussing.

isn't it?

It would be oppressive to force a SAHM who wasn't in receipt of benefits to go out and look for work.
However if there is a SAHM with a DH who was in receipt of benefits then they should also have to go and look for work once their children are of school age.

so, it is not' oppressive' when it is a LP?

No because those people are not recieving any benefits

No. It's about public money. Not work itself. A friend of mine is a SAHM with a very wealthy ex and she doesn't work. Her ex supports her. The law will not force her to work as she doesn;t rely on public money.

but in both situations there are children with the same needs and feelings. in both situations there are mums with the same needs and feelings. so why oppressive to one not the other?

so poor children with only a mum or a dad at home are not worth 'public money' being spent on them?

The difference is the SAHM is not relying on the state to keep her whilst the LP is.

but, it would make it 'fair'.

I don't think I've said that. Simply explained why I don't agree with your analogy. And what's wrong with public money? I almost wrote taxpayers, but it sounded too Daily Mail. I certainly think that public (or whatever) money should be spent on making sure that children have a reasonable quality of life. But I don't think asking parents of school age children to try to find suitable employment (and it would be suitable - nobody will be insisting on shift work as far as I know) is incompatible with that.

Why would it be fair? Why should some people have the state support them and their children whilst other have to work in order to support themselves and their children.

OK prepared to be flamed here.

I'm going to tell you all about my personal situation. Well, in general.

I am a single parent. I have 2 DC's who are 12 and 8. (There's also two older ones but they are at uni)

I have gone to uni this year and I expect DD1 who is 12 to walk home from school, let herself into the house and wait about an hour or so for me to get home.

DD2 goes to my parents.

But one night a week I have uni late and don't get home until around 8.30.

I would not dream of leaving DD1 until that time of night.

And I seriously would not be happy with the idea of leaving her all day in summer holidays etc if I had to go out to work or was on a work placement. She would go to my parents all day.

Which I think is a similar point to the one MaMoTaTT is making.

Mollie O. It is 5 hrs a day (9.30am to 2.30pm). I would imagine, cleaning,shopping, cooking, washing,ironing volunteer work,gardening,exercising,reading, studying -oh loads of things.

Then in the afternoons you might be able to spend time with children helping them with homework, talking etc without it being rushed and stressful. Also in the evenings you could spend time with friends, with your dh/dp, on hobbies, doing an evening class on something you are interested instead of rushing around doing many of the things I listed in the first paragraph.

I work 4 days a week btw